Lurker > Balrog0

She is black and I am white
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

MysteryMan923 posted...

What ethnicity is your gf?

Why do you ask, and why does it matter?
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

Omnislasher posted...

Balrog0 posted...

It's not even that, though. Her parents visited twice this week and we still 'have' to go over

yeah, we get it. she's fucking way too attached. and she's not about to just suddenly grow out of it considering her age so you got some serious thinking to do.

You might, but not everyone does clearly!
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

It's not even that, though. Her parents visited twice this week and we still 'have' to go over
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

Well not anymore, I just need to deal with us fighting all day Sunday if I don't!!
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

Naw the news and general public so not usually care so much. It started under Obama but really ramped up with Trump
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

64 had the best game of the best series, and it was an exclusive (ogre battle 64: person of lordly caliber)

So that
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

Kazi1212 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

Kazi1212 posted...

Have you told her you dont feel like going because you see them so frequently anyway and thats theres nothing wrong if she goes by herself?

Yes, of course I have. In much more polite ways than that even lol

then you should ask her why shes upset with you if thats the case. What does she feel when you decline to go, why does it make her feel bad? Maybe addressing that you two can reach a better understanding, unless shes like this with everything

I have. She is upset because we haven't been over in a few weeks. So what do I do with that?

I mean I'm not really looking for advice, just venting mainly, but I'm not refusing it either
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

Kazi1212 posted...

Have you told her you dont feel like going because you see them so frequently anyway and thats theres nothing wrong if she goes by herself?

Yes, of course I have. In much more polite ways than that even lol
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

emblem boy posted...

Why does she want you to go with her?

That's actually a good question... At first it was because she wanted her family and I to get to. know each other and feel like part of each others lives. I do get that, that's why I did it for so long.

But tbh she feels the need for us to do everything together. I think she just doesn't like being by herself, especially in situations where she feels like she has to do something she'd rather not actually do. She even has said that if I'm there it's easier for her to leave quicker (which factually isn't true, she leaves way faster if I'm not with her for whatever reason, but that's how she feels I think)
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

I mean it's like we say we can compromise but actually can't in practice. She keeps assuming I'm going to go with her whenever she does, so I've told her to instead please ask me how I. feel or what I'd like to do instead of assuming it.

But what happens is what happened today, where she assumes I'm going because it fits the technical 'terms' of our 'agreement.' So she gets upset when I tell her, actually, I don't want to visit your parents today instead of 'oh yeah you should call and see what they're up to so we can plan our trip'
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

SoundNetwork posted...

I have lunch with my parents with my wife every weekend or so for an hour. I don't see the big deal. When we visit my wife's home town we usually stay at her parents house for an extended time. Family is important

We start for much longer than an hour lol. And, not to be an ass, but I'd like to know how long you've been doing this and how consistently. I've asked around about this very thing and it's incredibly uncommon to see your parents this much, a lot of people who say they do this don't do so consistently.

For instance, if they have a family birthday party earlier in the week or if they visit their parents for dinner, they might skip Sunday brunch. That is not the case here. As noted. many times, we have seen them twice this week (I said briefly, but both occasions were still. over an hour, to. give you perspective on what brief means here)
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

If you're. just saying this. could be an irreconcilable difference, well yeah, this what I said in op
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

sylverlolol posted...

Time to grow up, OP

What part of my attitude or position do you find childish? Perhaps you haven't perused the whole topic, but I went with her every week for literally years. Is it always reasonable for her to expect my presence, regardless of how often she wants to go do it? What if she wanted to see them every day?
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

It's not her parents, it is the time commitment. I work all week and have a job that requires weekend and night hours semi frequently. I just like to do stuff on weekends other than clean, prep meals, and see our folks. Is that really that weird? Were almost 30...
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

They're also near one another, not us but that isn't the issue I have
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

boxington posted...

if you feel that someone is worth it, then sometimes you've gotta make sacrifices, and this one doesn't seem like a big one, IMO.

We've been together for almost 4 years, dude. Have you been to visit your parents more than 150 times, without exaggeration, on top of your other obligations in the last 4 years?

Slip-N-Slide posted...

Just agree to do it at least every other Sunday, unless something comes up or you see them another day between then, etc..

You said they're practically up the road, bruh just visit her parents. If you two have any reason to actually be together this wouldn't be an issue.

If that worked, I would. As I said, we've seen them twice this week but that doesn't count to her.
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

I've already seen them twice this week. Why should I?
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

I told her I didn't want to visit her parents today and she hasn't spoken to me since (except for us to argue) even when I ask her questions directly

Her reasoning for why I should go is basically that we haven't been in a few weeks. Well, the back story there is that she used to go every single Sunday and I went with her for a long time but I told her I didn't want to have a standing obligation every single Sunday for the rest of my life and I wasn't going to do that any more. So she started going every other week and still expects me to go with.

The frustrating thing is she is taking that literally. So I didn't go last week, which means I should go this week. But we'v already seen her family (briefly) twice this week -- and I really meant it more like I don't want to go see our parents regularly.

For reference I haven't even seen my parents since before Christmas. Both of our parents live more or less right down the street from each other so it's not because of distance.

Im starting to believe that I don't think I can make this relationship work
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

Disney just spent a shitload of money lobbying for corporate tax cuts and now people are acting like this thing is a political statement because it's an all black cast and writer and/or director

But those corporate tax cuts aren't good for black people in America, and endanger social safety net programs that do help black people in America
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

I did! Beat two bosses so far, really enjoying the rogue like/deck building hybrid gameplay so far
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

I am literally about to buy slay the spire
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Look up Project Exile.

there is no evidence that worked lol

edit - well, there is some evidence it worked initially in the pilot city, but replica programs in the area failed
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

Sephiroth1288 posted...

The guy wasn't allowed to have a backpack at his own school because he had a history of threatening people

Threats of violence last I checked are a crime.

maybe so, but the standards for an FBI investigation are higher than they are for school incidents due to the constitution

violent threats are also under the jurisdiction of the states, and not the federal government, depending on what precisely he was threatening (I don't know specifically what he got in trouble for in school -- do you?)
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

Anteaterking posted...

He describes himself as a "classical Liberal". Most historians consider modern liberalism to be disjoint from Locke/Smith style liberalism, so it's not really a case of someone self-criticizing a group they belong to.

on top of that, american conservatives and american liberals can both trace their ideological roots to classical liberalism, so by this same token peterson has as much in common with modern conservatives as modern liberals
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

the problem with him is that he doesn't make cogent arguments that are easily refutable, he makes scientific claims when it suits him and then slips into analogies that aren't meant to be taken literally in the same sentence

as @COVxy has pointed out, for instance, his idea that we can learn things about hierarchy and such from lobster physiology is basically not true in any scientific sense whatsoever, but he and his followers don't actually care about that from what I can tell. The overall message he is trying to present is more meaningful to he and they than the factual accuracy of his supporting statements. He uses particular pieces of scientific information, but he does not employ them in a scientific way. His thinking has more in common with Joseph Campbell style mysticism (which is systematic, like Peterson is, but not at all scientific) than with philosophy or science.
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

Sephiroth1288 posted...

So the guy wasn't stopped due to a failure of the law being implemented correctly...so the solution is to make more laws that can also be implemented incorrectly.

we don't know, actually, since it is possible (and from what I've read, probable) that he would have been cleared regardless due to him not having done anything illegal

but yes there is obviously a problem with the way our federal government collects and shares information between different offices and agencies
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

uh no peg
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

party game?
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

i said probably not, most mass shooters get guns in ways that would likely be legal under a new gun control regime or would be difficult to regulate (like taking it from a family member who bought it legally)
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

well yeah didnt it start the cart racing genre or whatever?
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

I mean one of the laws that is very effective for curbing illegal drunk driving is having adults who host said teen drinking be legally responsible for teen drunk driving, for instance

it isnt a very popular or widespread law but some municipalities/localities have it

this idea that there's nothing to be done about drunk driving except to punish the drunk driver after the fact is based on literally nothing except this fantasy analogy gun control opponents use to make this argument
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

Ulyanyx posted...

the only regulatory steps you can take for drunk drivers is after something has occurred

no, that is not the case at all, actually. specifically if what you're talking about is reducing deaths related to drunk driving, rather than punishing people who drive or might drive drunk.

Ulyanyx posted...

there is no gaurenteed way to stop people from driving intoxicated unless we either move to self driving cars en masse, or we have more measures and people in place to prevent people from driving drunk/intoxicated. (because yes some people will still take the risk)

my point being; just because laws are in place, does not mean it will not happen. i'm sure many people on this site have done something "unlawful" whether it's been as simple as exploring private property or something worse (as some people have claimed against other users, but i'm not bringing any of that drama here)

yeah like I said this is an argument against all laws.
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

Ulyanyx posted...

and as op said, we blame the driver, the bomber, but for some reason when it comes to mass shootings, it's only about making more laws against guns? though from the other two scenarios given, you should realize that just because there are laws in place, it will not stop people from driving drunk, from terrorist acts, and it will not stop people who wish to shoot someone from getting a gun and doing so.

except, no, we do plenty of things other than 'blame the driver' and also your argument applies equally to the regulatory steps we do take for drunk drivers.
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

lightwarrior78 posted...

This is factious. Rules about drunk driving are focused on being punitive only to those that have done it and got caught. We penalize the drunk driver, but don't go on to penalize the bartender or liquor store clerk .

No, that simply isn't true. Sorry, see post 38. We don't focus exclusively on punitive measures ex-post. We also have preventive measures.

lightwarrior78 posted...

OT, notice I didn't make the car argument but the booze one. Booze isn't necessary for life and does lead to a lot of damage done to people beyond the drinker. The difference is, the left likes to drink. It deosn't own guns. So guess want is focused on and how it's handled. Imagine the uproar if you had to produce a mental health card to buy booze (note: I work in the field with the developmentally disabled and one of the hardest things to do is keep them from drinking), or after too many incidents with young people the age limit was raised to 35. You wouldn't hear "buh buh but it's not banning, just trying to prevent harm being done".

Two things:

1) that is a stupid argument in bold, we literally did that by moving the drinking age nationally to 21 through a somewhat controversial highway funding mechanism rather than directly. probably raising the age to 35 would be different but you are choosing an arbitrarily high age. granted, there are arguments against increasing the drinking age, too, just as there are arguments against some kinds of gun control, but this idea is not as ridiculous as you are attempting to make it sound.

2) we do restrict alcohol in a lot of ways, what are you talking about? you literally can't buy alcohol on sunday where I live! there are multiple counties where alcohol sales are illegal, period! and even then there are restrictions on the kind, strength, and origin of alcohols you can sell. if you mean restaurants and bars, those require both local and state permits similar to gun stores. and we have higher excise taxes on alcohol than we do on guns...
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-statement-on-the-shooting-in-parkland-florida

On January 5, 2018, a person close to Nikolas Cruz contacted the FBIs Public Access Line (PAL) tipline to report concerns about him. The caller provided information about Cruzs gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.

Under established protocols, the information provided by the caller should have been assessed as a potential threat to life. The information then should have been forwarded to the FBI Miami Field Office, where appropriate investigative steps would have been taken.

We have determined that these protocols were not followed for the information received by the PAL on January 5. The information was not provided to the Miami Field Office, and no further investigation was conducted at that time.

FBI Director Christopher Wray said:

We are still investigating the facts. I am committed to getting to the bottom of what happened in this particular matter, as well as reviewing our processes for responding to information that we receive from the public. Its up to all Americans to be vigilant, and when members of the public contact us with concerns, we must act properly and quickly.

We have spoken with victims and families, and deeply regret the additional pain this causes all those affected by this horrific tragedy. All of the men and women of the FBI are dedicated to keeping the American people safe, and are relentlessly committed to improving all that we do and how we do it.
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

yeah I dont see why this wouldn't be enforceable though I do question the extent to which they will enforce it
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

KingCrabCake posted...

No it hasnt people responded and i responded back.

and you haven't refuted anything that has been said

KingCrabCake posted...

Guns are also heavily regulated.

no, they really are not.

KingCrabCake posted...

Im asking what kind of gun control would you apply

idgaf about that, there are plenty of examples of useful gun control measures but the issue I have is that your analogy is just completely wrong. we do more than just blame the individual when it comes to bomb and car deaths. we look at the systemic issues we have that lead to them. you are attempting to apply a different standard for gun control, though. just admit that is the case and move on
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

KingCrabCake posted...

Nope its not a dumb analogy. Do you blame the pencil when you spell a word wrong?

Its the person behind the gun thats to blame not the tool itself.

it has already been clearly explained to you how your analogy fails. this pencil analogy is different from the two you first used, because the two you first used have actual implications for public health whereas this one is a much more basic (and therefore less useful) comparison where you are talking about assigning individual blame for an individual action that has no implications outside of this bounded scenario you are talking about

to bring this back on topic, both drunk driving and bomb making are heavily regulated in various ways that guns are not, specifically due to the public health and safety implications involved in them. if the worst a gun could do was make you lose a point on a test then your new analogy would be more useful.
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

TC please just stop using this dumb analogy now that it has been clearly refuted and admit that you view guns in a unique light for whatever reason you choose. but don't pretend that these comparisons to other scenarios are even close to correct. you value your gun rights more than you value attempts to stop gun deaths. I am not shaming you for that, but that is the case. it has nothing to do with how we treat cars or bombs, and if it did you would be forced to change your position on this matter
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

seems dumb but I also dont care
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

excellent pics
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

I mean that is simply not true. The campaign against drunk driving includes shaming and punishing the individuals responsible, but also has an emphasis on systemic changes to our legal and transit systems which could help reduce drunk driving deaths --

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3823314/

Based on the definition proposed by Becker and Posner [37], we classifed these drinking and driving policies into two categories: preventive and ex-postregulations. Preventive regulations were enacted to prevent drinking and driving, including the Beer tax, MLDA, and Open Container Laws, whereas ex-post regulations were enacted to penalize drivers under the influence of alcohol, including the 0.08 BAC limit, ALR, the Safety Belt Law, the Zero Tolerance Law, speed limits, and DUI fines. Although some laws such as the beer tax, speed limits, and the Safety Belt Law were not intended to reduce alcohol-related collisions, numerous studies have observed that these laws had direct and significant effects on alcohol-related fatalities. Specifically, the effects of the beer tax on alcohol-related fatalities were widely examined. For example, the empirical results of Chaloupka and Wechsler [38], Phelps [39], Kenkel [40], Saffer and Grossman [12], and Mann et al. [41] showed a significant negative correlation between the beer tax and alcohol-related fatalities, whereas the empirical results of Sloan and Githens [42], Dee [18], Mast et al. [43], and Young and Likens [36] indicated that the relationship between the beer tax and alcohol-related fatalities was neither significant nor necessarily negatively correlated...

On the other hand, drinking habits and attitudes may not be easily changed in the areas with high alcohol-related fatalities; ex-post regulations are thus important for discouraging drinking people driving on the road. As a result, ex-post regulations are more important in the areas with high fatalities whereas preventive regulations are intended to prevent alcohol abuse and thus decrease alcohol-related fatalities in the areas with low fatalities.


in fact there are movements to systemically change our transit system to stop driving deaths even when they aren't related to alcohol!

http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/gov-pedestrian-deaths-vision-zero-sweden.html

this talking point always drives me crazy when people say shit like 'cars kill lots of people, why don't we ban them!?' well we do a lot of public policy work related to reducing those deaths you jackass hypothetical person
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hot-thought/201802/jordan-peterson-s-flimsy-philosophy-life

Petersons allusive style makes critiquing him like trying to nail jelly to a cloud, but I have tried to indicate alternatives to his assumptions about morality, individualism, reality, and the meaning of life. If you go for Christian mythology, narrow-minded individualism, obscure metaphysics, and existentialist angst, then Jordan Peterson is the philosopher for you. But if you prefer evidence and reason, look elsewhere.
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

frankly, her ADHD is a problem for me. after her adderall wears off it feels like to get anything done I need to constantly nag her because otherwise she gets distracted in the middle of doing things and will drop it to do something else that crosses her mind and we end up with her starting like 7 different cleaning projects and not finishing any of them. no one incident is ever bad, but it is kind of frustrating to deal with on a day-in, day-out basis tbh
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

indeed
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

humans are somethin else man
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

Kelystic posted...

Bruce Banner (The Hulk) mating with She-Hulk (his cousin) to create an army of Hulks

lol when did this happen
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

YourDrunkFather posted...

I'm sure it still got a tin of likes and positive comments despite being really stupid.

yes
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

why do you have stupid people added on your FB, Balrog

these aren't stupid people, though
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.